House Republican questions why NewYork-Presbyterian is in ‘rural’ category
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith criticized the classification of NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital as a 'rural' facility despite its location in Manhattan, arguing it exploits a loophole for financial benefit. Smith claimed such designations divert resources meant for rural areas and contribute to rising healthcare costs. NewYork-Presbyterian defended its status by stating it qualifies as a Rural Referral Center and treats thousands of patients from rural regions.
- ▪House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith questioned why NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital in Manhattan is classified as a rural facility.
- ▪Smith stated that 425 hospitals have received rural funding over the past six years despite not being in rural areas.
- ▪NewYork-Presbyterian defended its rural designation by noting it treats 8,000 patients annually referred from rural hospitals and qualifies under CMS rules.
- ▪The hospital system is also facing a Justice Department antitrust lawsuit over alleged anti-competitive insurance contracts.
- ▪Smith cited examples of excessive hospital billing, such as a $13,000 emergency CT scan versus a $79 office follow-up cost.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Metro House Republican questions why NewYork-Presbyterian is in ‘rural’ category By Carl Campanile Published May 3, 2026, 5:38 p.m. ET He’s calling it a certified country crock! A top House Republican railed over NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital being classified as a “rural” medical center despite sitting near skyscrapers in the middle of Manhattan’s urban jungle. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Missouri) claimed Sunday that the folksy tag for the hospital showed why America’s “titanic” health care spending was out of control and ripe for abuse. 3 House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith slammed America’s “titanic” health care spending.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at New York Post.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from New York Post
